jerryroche wrote:I know there are issues with his velocity and his motion, but are there any rumors that Ubaldo might also have somewhat of a head problem? I can't believe that various coaches haven't tried to correct his motion/velocity problems in the past 1-1/2 seasons.

Could he be a head case (stubborn, at least) on top of it all?

He had a very public bitchfest about the Rockies after the trade, whining that they didn't pay him enough and that he was treated unfairly. Then, he really seemed to sulk for an extended period about being traded from the only organization he knew.

It wouldn't shock me if he had some coachability problems. I have it on good authority that Acta was not a player-friendly manager and was a "do it my way or no way" kind of skipper. Radinsky was fired during the season. The season was a lost cause when Niebla came in. Callaway and Francona may be able to get through to Jimenez, I don't know.

The velocity problem was chalked up to a hip flexor during Spring Training that never went away and a finger injury during 2011. At least, that's what everybody said, anyway. But, 2012 proves that it was more than that.

Again, he could have the head the size of a marble and be as uncoachable a guy you ever saw - and if he's throwing 96 with movement he's gonna get outs.

He could be Mother Theresa in a ball cap throwing 92 with his command and he's gonna blow.

leadpipe wrote:Again, he could have the head the size of a marble and be as uncoachable a guy you ever saw - and if he's throwing 96 with movement he's gonna get outs.

He could be Mother Theresa in a ball cap throwing 92 with his command and he's gonna blow.

Yes, but if he's not willing to listen to the coaches' suggestions on how to restore his velo, he's not going to. It's pretty clear that whatever his offseason regimen is isn't working, as his velo has steadily dropped for three years.

Last edited by skatingtripods on Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

leadpipe wrote:Again, he could have the head the size of a marble and be as uncoachable a guy you ever saw - and if he's throwing 96 with movement he's gonna get outs.

He could be Mother Theresa in a ball cap throwing 92 with his command and he's gonna blow.

Yes, but if he's not willing to listen to the coaches' suggestions on how to restore his velo, he's not going to. It's pretty clear that whatever his offense regimen is isn't working, as his velo has steadily dropped for three years.

But this is the crux of the problem.

No way to know for sure, but I'd be skeptical if coaching is gonna restore that velocity. I'd say the wear and tear of pitching is the cause, as it has been for a zillion other guys. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate I suppose, BUT IF YOU'RE GETTING PAID TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS YOU BETTER DAMN WELL KNOW WHICH IT IS BEFORE YOU TRADE FOR THE GUY.

If they think - and thought, they could "coach up" his velocity back, than I'd say I think it's a pretty poor gamble, but have at it. If they traded for him thinking the velocity drop wasn't that big a deal, I'd ask what other qualities does the guy bring to the table. Practically ALL his success was based on having a plus fastball, so yeah, might wanna be clear as to why he wasn't throwing too hard.

People make mistakes in judgement in deals all the time. No big deal. But there were some big warning sign here they oughta have checked out. Inexcusable.

No way to know for sure, but I'd be skeptical if coaching is gonna restore that velocity. I'd say the wear and tear of pitching is the cause, as it has been for a zillion other guys. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate I suppose, BUT IF YOU'RE GETTING PAID TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS YOU BETTER DAMN WELL KNOW WHICH IT IS BEFORE YOU TRADE FOR THE GUY.

If they think - and thought, they could "coach up" his velocity back, than I'd say I think it's a pretty poor gamble, but have at it. If they traded for him thinking the velocity drop wasn't that big a deal, I'd ask what other qualities does the guy bring to the table. Practically ALL his success was based on having a plus fastball, so yeah, might wanna be clear as to why he wasn't throwing too hard.

Two things:

1. I realize my argument may be a little bit simplistic. The test case in Boddy's article was 86 to 90, which is much easier than increasing 92 to 96, and he admitted as much when I asked him about Jimenez. But, I imagine restoring *some* of that velocity is doable. If he could throw 96 before, outside of an arm injury, which we've never heard anything about, it seems reasonable that Jimenez could get back to 96.

2. When I say "coaches", I just don't mean Francona and Callaway. Why wouldn't the strength coach suggest a training regimen to increase velocity?

I can't speak for Boddy, but, his facility has taken a lot of players and increased their velocity by leaps and bounds. I will say that many of them are still developing pitchers, which would probably make a difference in the Jimenez scenario, but if he says it's possible to restore velocity, I have no reason not to believe him.

I asked him why teams and organizations don't do it and he said because they don't think it can be done. When I asked him if it was a systemic issue, he said yes and that velo drops tend to happen due to a reduction in training. A reduction in training is probably both a suggestion from the top and the pitcher adhering to the general consensus of arms getting burnt out and limiting workload.

Overall, my point in the article was this: What do the Indians have to lose? We've already established that Jimenez is borderline useless throwing 92. What does any team have to lose with a non-prospect or a fading starter? If the guy keeps dropping in velo, he'll continue to lose value. Why not try to stop it? Because the culture of babying pitchers has dictated it.

People make mistakes in judgement in deals all the time. No big deal. But there were some big warning sign here they oughta have checked out. Inexcusable.

There were. They were told it was a hip flexor and a finger issue and the Rockies didn't allow the Indians to perform a physical before making the trade, at least from my recollection. That was a big mistake on Antonetti's part.

But, you have to try and salvage what you can. If shutting him down for a couple months to try and increase his velocity, while we still have another option year available, has any chance of working, it should be explored.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

neoleo wrote:It's not too late to trade A Cab or Perez, and either/both could fetch us a starting pitcher while potentially reducing payroll.

My first reaction is that Stubbs could be on the block, but he's a RH bat; we saw what happened against lefties last year when Shelley Duncan was the only RH bat option on the bench. Would be nice to be able to roll Aviles, Reynolds, and Stubbs out there against a tough lefty, and make him work for it.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reports that the Indians are "not looking to move" Drew Stubbs or Michael Brantley.There was some speculation that Stubbs or Brantley could be on the block after the Indians agreed to terms with Michael Bourn on Monday night, but it appears there will be room for all of them. As of now, the plan is to use Bourn, Brantley and Stubbs in the outfield while Nick Swisher will mostly play first base and Mark Reynolds will get the majority of his at-bats from the DH spot.

I saw that, very interesting comment. And I think that should stop the Stubbs on the block speculation, no?

I would hope nothing would stop an attempt to trade Drew Stubbs. I don't want speculation, I want all in efforts to trade Stubbs for any A or AA pitcher with an ounce of potential. In 2011 Drew Stubbs did not hit as well as Shelley Duncan. In 2012 Drew Stubbs did not hit as well as Shelley Duncan. I can't see his speed and defense enough to offset how horrible he is as a hitter. I guess there's magic beans in Arizona this year that will revert both Stubbs and Jimenez to 2010.

scrambler wrote:I would hope nothing would stop an attempt to trade Drew Stubbs. I don't want speculation, I want all in efforts to trade Stubbs for any A or AA pitcher with an ounce of potential. In 2011 Drew Stubbs did not hit as well as Shelley Duncan. In 2012 Drew Stubbs did not hit as well as Shelley Duncan. I can't see his speed and defense enough to offset how horrible he is as a hitter. I guess there's magic beans in Arizona this year that will revert both Stubbs and Jimenez to 2010.

scrambler wrote:I can't see his speed and defense enough to offset how horrible he is as a hitter.

Considering his WAR by season is: 1.4, 4.0, 2.6, 1.3, I'm pretty sure that makes his speed and defense enough to offset how horrible he is as a hitter.

Also, as I've already said, Stubbs is an above average hitter against LHP. He'll have value, just not as much as an everyday player instead of a strictly platoon player.

Playing only against lefties would be fine. That's not what I'm sensing about what's going on with him. In 2010 he had even splits right and left, and he had very close to every day player skills back then. The last two years he's hit lefties only. I'm guessing perhaps that's the trend. I'd much rather see Carrera against righties.

Yeah, in all seriousness, I am intrigued by Stubbs. Great defense, speed, pop, and if you limit exposure to some tough righties, he could put up some good OBP. Supposedly, he's working on his swing mechanics (yeah, yeah, spring training cliches), but he could be a steal, especially batting in the 9th spot where really any offense is a bonus. I'd like to see what he could do for a few months before they relegate him to full bench duty.

I think Stewart, if he ever gets healthy, won't be a horrible player. He's struggled with the injury bug the last few years.

That said, the thought of watching Valbuena at the hot corner for the Cubs all summer will make them even harder to watch, although watching Rizzo swing the bat makes it a bit easier. The Padres sold way too low on him, I think.

WiscTribeFan wrote:I think Stewart, if he ever gets healthy, won't be a horrible player. He's struggled with the injury bug the last few years.

That said, the thought of watching Valbuena at the hot corner for the Cubs all summer will make them even harder to watch, although watching Rizzo swing the bat makes it a bit easier. The Padres sold way too low on him, I think.

Stewart's already going to be 28 at the start of this year. He better hope he stays healthy and figures it out pretty quickly.

Yeah, Rizzo for a full season will be nice. I think the Cubs exceed their win total (72 at Atlantis Casino in Reno). I do like their rotation. I think Samardzjia is poised to become a top 15 NL starting pitcher.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Breaks up the lefties and the switch hitters nicely. Santana at 6 is a bit of a surprise to me but it ensures that the lineup has no back-to-back lefties or switch hitters. I like Brantley lower in the lineup (I thought he'd be 6 behind Santana) and I might switch Kipnis and ACab, but that starts you off with two lefties.

I'm sure it will change before opening day but a good look at which way Francona is leaning.

Breaks up the lefties and the switch hitters nicely. Santana at 6 is a bit of a surprise to me but it ensures that the lineup has no back-to-back lefties or switch hitters. I like Brantley lower in the lineup (I thought he'd be 6 behind Santana) and I might switch Kipnis and ACab, but that starts you off with two lefties.

I'm sure it will change before opening day but a good look at which way Francona is leaning.

I'm in love with that lineup. I hope that's the everyday lineup. If you get the top of the order on, guys like Brantley, Santana, and Reynolds are really going to extend the inning for the pitcher and possibly get some mistakes to jump on. Get those guys on at the top and you might see a lot of 20-pitch innings for the opposing starters.

I actually like Santana batting 6th, even though it negates some of his OBP value with Reynolds, Chisenhall, and Stubbs behind him. I think it gives him the chance to be a little bit more aggressive on fastballs, especially with runners on base. Even with the protection behind him, if runners are on base, pitchers have to come after Santana and challenge him. If they walk him, the risk-reward of Reynolds goes up. You might strike him out, but he also may turn a solo HR into a 2 or 3-run HR. Same with Chisenhall. When's the last time we had a 7 & 8 combo with the possibility of hitting 45+ HR? Has to be the mid-90s.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

I'm perfectly fine with him being dropped in the order. I assumed it would be 5 but I'm ok with 6 because I like the balance it gives the lineup. Quotes coming out about the lineup from Francona and Alomar that they want him to concentrate on catching and handling the staff. Batting him 3rd and 4th wasn't allowing him to do that.

I also think Swisher was written into the cleanup spot the moment he signed.

FWIW, Bill James projects him at .261/.383/.476/.859, which I think is really aiming for the stars, but I'd be ecstatic for production like that.

I'm hopeful. He really did quietly turn it up a little over the last few months last season. And he'll be another year past that injury, if that had anything to do with it.

I hope he's behind the plate as much as possible if he's hitting well. It's just so valuable to have a guy with that production back there. I understand that he'll never be a plus defender, but the Mets made due with Piazza.*

*and yes, I understand how stupidly ridiculous it is to compare Carlos to arguably the best offensive catcher in the history of the game. What do y want from me?

motherscratcher wrote:I'm hopeful. He really did quietly turn it up a little over the last few months last season. And he'll be another year past that injury, if that had anything to do with it.

I hope he's behind the plate as much as possible if he's hitting well. It's just so valuable to have a guy with that production back there.

Bastian said something last month about how the Indians plan to have him catch as much as his body can handle it.

His second half was interesting. Hit .281, walked four times more than he struck out, had 29 XBH (18 in first half), and hit into 18 double plays.

.244 with RISP won't cut it, though. Not if they're going to hit him 5th or 6th.

He's pretty much just now entering his prime. I keep forgetting that he suffered that concussion last May, which pretty much derailed his first half. I can't help but wonder if the second half Santana is close to what we can expect from now on.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

I love the balance in that lineup. Ideally, Brantley is not a number five hitter (obviously), but for now, it's about the only move you can make that doesn't end up putting a couple lefties back-to-back later on down the lineup, so I'll live with it. You could almost look at him as another leadoff hitter after the clean-up hitter (Swisher). Sounds like a LaRussa kind of experiment, but see what happens. And who knows...maybe dropping Santana down to the 6 hole takes a little pressure off him to where he doesn't have to be "that guy" that we've counted on the past couple years. He puts up that kind of production (or even better, with the pressure off) in the sixth spot in the order, you've got a pretty decent lineup.

Given the nature of the Indians front office and Antonetti raving about Francona and his desire to know all the stats and talk to the analytics guys when he was interviewed on Clubhouse Confidential last week, maybe this is pertinent to our 2013 lineup: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3 ... -lineup-by

Here's the summary:

Another way to look at things is to order the batting slots by the leveraged value of the out. In plain English (sort of), we want to know how costly making an out is by each lineup position, based on the base-out situations they most often find themselves in, and then weighted by how often each lineup spot comes to the plate. Here's how the lineup spots rank in the importance of avoiding outs:

#1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9

So, you want your best three hitters to hit in the #1, #4, and #2 spots. Distribute them so OBP is higher in the order and SLG is lower. Then place your fourth and fifth best hitters, with the #5 spot usually seeing the better hitter, unless he's a high-homerun guy. Then place your four remaining hitters in decreasing order of overall hitting ability, with basestealers ahead of singles hitters. Finally, stop talking like the lineup is a make-or-break decision.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

What, thousands of hours spent numbers crunching to figure out the lineups being used for over a century are pretty much right?

Well worth the effort in my opinion.

Exactly what I was thinin'.

Take the Brantley example. The problem with Brantley hitting 5th isn't so much that he doesn't fit the bill of a "classic" fifth hitter.

The problem is you don't have anyone better hitting 5th.

So old school, or analytical, you're going to draw pretty much the same conclusion.

Using analytics as a reason to shoehorn a guy into a position he shouldn't be in, cause there's no better choice is ok - hell, probably right, it's just that it's an argument that losing teams have - the good offenses ain't out a playas by then.